Saturday, December 28, 2013

It hardly qualifies as news, it happens so much, but Mr. "Cristan" Williams has come up with another of his signature whoppers. He is whining because Cathy Brennan contacted OutSmart Magazine, and LGBT publication in Houston, to complain about an article Williams wrote on what he likes to call "Transgender Exclusionary Radical Feminists," or TERFs. Williams has repeated a lie he created, claiming that Ms. Brennan is affiliated with the Pacific Justice Institute. She isn't, and his entire basis for this claim is the fact that she apparently posted a link to something they published. Hmm, based on that logic, I would hate to see what Mr. Williams would claim about me….

Mr. Williams plays fast and loose with the facts quite often. Then when confronted with the truth, he simply lies more. In this case, only a fool would would begin to believe this flimsy lie.

Unfortunately, Mr. Williams personally imposed himself into the case of the Colorado teen that became the focus of so much controversy. Elizabeth at Notes From the T-Sideis closer to see the problem here, but I suspect does not want to admit that her enthusiastic endorsement of Mr. Williams was in error.

Elizabeth writes, quite accurately, about how being labeled transgender hurts the cases of someone like the student referred to by Mr. Williams as "Jane Doe," but still refuses to admit that Williams' motivations, and actions, have nothing to do with helping the child, and everything to do with pushing the radical transgender agenda of full and unfettered access to women's spaces for men pretending to be women.

BTW, in spite of the best efforts of the transgender kooks, it appears that the implementation of AB 1266 will not be quite what they planned. News articles have talked about schools making plans to provide privacy in dressing areas, so the kook's vision of "transgender" males waving penises around the girls is not going to happen after all.

Of course, knowing the kooks, and their agenda, I am wondering when the first lawsuit challenging such an approach will appear? And how quickly things will blow up in their face?

Thursday, December 5, 2013

It's funny, but a lot of times I will have an idea brewing, and then an article will come along that fits that idea so perfectly, it is frightening. That happened recently with an article on GenderTrender about a review of Julia Serano’s “Excluded” by lesbian Kit Van Cleave was published by Houston’s OutSmart. Hmmmm...Houston....I wonder if noted transgender kook, and Houston resident, Mr. "Cristan" Williams is involved?

In any case, the review, which was very even handed, was pounced upon by the transgender extremists and OutSmart caved, and pulled it. The problem is, from the rhetoric, you would think this review was some "Janice Raymond" type attack piece...instead, as I said, it is very even handed. What it does not do is specifically pander to the TG mindset.Here is this highly offensive article. Decide for yourself:

”All that aside, some books I just can’t get through, even with sustained effort, like a pair sent to the OutSmart offices. I’ve had to struggle to grasp the authors intentions, and examine why I found these books impenetrable. Sometimes it’s just style- long sentences covering half a page without ceasing, terms created without definition or juxtaposed to other terms so that the two don’t make sense: lack of logic; inability to support an argument; unclear overall goals; ambiguity. In Julia Serano’s “Excluded”, for example, the first twenty pages is given over to redefining terms, making up new terms, and wrestling terms about the various available “lifestyles” in the gay community. As Serano puts it, “I call myself a woman and transsexual…because I feel those words best describe some parts of my person.” Okay, fair enough, until this comment follows immediately after: “ I do not believe that there is some magical underlying quality all musicians, or all bird people, or all women, or all transsexuals have in common.” Huh?

Another puzzlement is the prefix cis. “It is difficult to discuss trans people without also having langage to describe the majority of people who are not trans.” Serano writes, continuing, so “transactivists often use the word cisgender as a synonym for non-transgender and cissexual as a synonym for non-transsexual.” And that’s all the definiton of cis we’re going to get from Serano. According to other sources, the word actually stands for people happy with the gender and sexuality they feel they were born with. I know gay people reject being called abnormal, but that’s no reason to come up with a new word for “normal”.

Wikipedia attributes “Cisgender” to Carl Buijs, a transsexual from the Netherlands. In April 1996, Buijs wrote in a Usenet posting, “I just made [the word] up.”

As Serano’s book is also a bit of a memoir, I found in Part One, Chapter 2, that this writer, who calls herself a woman, has made the decision to still retain his penis. As a matter of fact, Serano went to a summer camp specifically to protest people with penises not being allowed to attend the Michigan Women’s Music Festival (the sponsors were apparently avoiding “male energy” with this fest.) I believe I’m lost. If we’re going with the idea that semantics is dead (i.e. “transsexual” doesn’t mean what it means), or no longer useful, then throw out the dictionaries. Until then, I expect writers to try to stay within the agreed meaning of the words we all use. Otherwise, I can call myself a puppy, but no one will know what I’m talking about when I describe my life.”

Now, I am left to wonder what they find so objectionable? The fact that the author speaks the truth? Serano may claim to identify as a transsexual, but clearly is not. Transsexuals seek to have surgery. When one declares that one is not planning to have surgery, one is declaring that one is not a transsexual. The person doing so may come to find that they are mistaken, but that is not that common.

The idea that I was thinking about addressing is how transgender extremist react to anything that does not specifically endorse their questionable logic by instantly screaming, at the top of their lungs, that it is an obvious example of transphobic hate speech, and must be censored, banned, and the author soundly humiliated in public. And I realized that the very simple reason they take this approach is obvious. They really can't defend their views in a reasonable manner.If people make reasonable points, and it happens quite often, the transgender extremists go into panic mode, scream "transphobia" and hate, and use those terms, which I have previously labeled "club words" to beat down the truth.And then there is the latest from Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, where he starts whining about some issues he doesn't want to face as well.So, therefore, it is obvious that the "fundamental theorem of transgenderism" is to hide from the facts, present a false front, and scream like crazy to avoid having to actually justify their unreasonable demands.

Friday, November 22, 2013

Well, it seems that the kooks at "Transadvocate," well Mr. "Cristan" Williams and Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen decided to put on a performance by having a protest at the offices of the Pacific Justice Institute. Clearly, Mr. Williams was anticipating a massive protest judging from his rather optimistic bit of artwork that accompanied the announcement of the event...

Instead...well, instead there was a total of 10 protestors, including Mr. Williams and Mr. Sandeen....

Quite a contrast...

So, we have an extremist religious right group, that has no real understanding of transsexualism being picketed by an extremist transgender group (somehow, I am not sure 10 people would exactly qualify as much of a group) who, well, have no real understanding of transsexualism.

I did get a real laugh out of Mr. Williams' enthusiastic prose....

Those who chose to call out PJI’s obdurate behavior were trans allies, parents, youth, war veterans, clergy and attorneys as well as 100s of virtual protesters who used the #JD4PJI tag to draw attention to PJI’s bullying.

Well, let's see.... The, uh, "trans allies" part sort of goes without saying...Mr. Sandeen and Mr. Williams would both qualify as parents....Mr. Sandeen could sort of, kind of, be called a "war veteran" if you stretch the meaning and I suppose at least one other might have served in the military, though that is not certain....there are a couple kids there, no doubt when they should have been in school....one of the people was a theology professor who decided she is really a "dude" so I guess that would qualify as "clergy" singular...If more than one of these is actually an attorney, I would be surprised (actually, none of them look likely to be) so that whole spiel is a bit of obvious spin. I wonder if PJI even knew they were out there? I seriously doubt they cared.

I can imagine both Mr. Sandeen and Mr. Williams eagerly anticipating the massive crowd that would show up. I also would suspect they were quite disappointed that it turned out to be a total bust. I wonder how many news organizations they contacted, only to have, quite obviously, no one show up to cover this momentous event. I wonder if they contacted the LAPD to warn them that there would be a huge rally that day? Seriously, this is more than a little hilarious.

Oh, and I checked, and apparently Pacific Justice Institute did not care enough to even mention this event....I guess even they thought it beneath notice.

Monday, November 18, 2013

I noticed that Elizabeth is still puffing up her claim of an early transition. In all honesty, I am happy for anyone who was lucky enough to have escaped the literal Hell that I went through, but I have to ask...Why do some have to be such insufferable jerks about it? As I have said, the classic example is Suzan Cooke, but I am seeing that same sort of silliness from Elizabeth, and it is really sad.First off, I have taken a, shall we say, agnostic stance on the Colorado case. I have not said that the person involved is, or is not, transsexual. Now, I don't know if Elizabeth has problems with reading comprehension, or if she just wants to pick a fight, but I have not denied that this person is a transsexual. I have said, repeatedly, that I honestly don't know. And unless Elizabeth has information from a reliable source, I.e. one that is not Mr."Cristan" Williams, I would assert that she does not know either, though clearly she thinks she does. Am I blinded? No, I am just engaging in critical thinking. In fact, just the opposite. I am not blindly accepting something I do not know is fact, simply because I want it to be true. I don't hate Mr. Williams. I don't care for his extremism, and I think he does a lot of harm. I think he believes he can pretty much claim whatever he wishes, and fool people into buying into it. So, excuse me if I choose not to accept what he claims as the truth without question.To be honest, I get very much disgusted by people who choose to sit on others when they do not know all the facts. Elizabeth knows a little of what I went through, but only a very little. And that is how it will remain because I am not going to share stuff that is, quite simply any of her business. Elizabeth claims to have faced the same issues I did. Sorry, but that is pure and complete POPPYCOCK. She has no way of knowing what issues I faced. Nor do I have any way of knowing what issues she faced. She throws out a few straw men, like therapists or money (yes, I have talked about a "bad therapist" thought that is a very simplistic version of a story that I am not about to share the details of. There was a lot of pain involved, and there I other people's privacy that I will not violate. Elizabeth seems to think she has some right to know more than is her business. Or perhaps she simply doesn't care that some would desire to us that to harass me. There are things I shared with my therapist who did not share Elizabeth's skepticism. She will just have to accept that I think they as having a lot more validity than her opinions. The simple fact, and it may be more than she can deal with, but I really don't need her approval or validation. The really sad thing is, Elizabeth is simply doing a bad imitation of the same crap that Bailey and Blanchard spew. No, I did not transition as early as I would have liked. Yes, I made choices that caused me problems. I suffered a lot of pain, but hey, I have daughter and three lovely grandchildren. I have wondered...what if my life had taken a different path? I can't say that I would change things if I could. I certainly wouldn't just to please someone like Elizabeth. What Elizabeth should realize is that it's not just when you transitioned, it is what your life was life before you transitioned. People like Lask, and Mr. Sandeen, and quite a few others had rather nice careers as men. They often showed no sign of any real dysphoria before they finally decided to transition instead. Yeah, I got delayed along the path, and I suffered quite a bit because of it. But, I also learned a lot, and I have some people in my life I would not trade for anything. I may not have "transitioned" at an age that Elizabeth deems acceptable, but I also did not have a successful life as a male. But, some people can't see beyond their own insecurities.Yes, it's funny how things work out. I am quite secure in my womanhood, and I have a lovely daughter, and three lovely grandchildren, one of whom turned six yesterday. Elizabeth transitioned early, and seems to have so much insecurity, she feels the need to surround herself with sycophants who try to gain her imprimatur as being good transsexuals. Oh well, life if funny that way.Oh, and I love how Lask tries to play dumb in his attempt to cover his tracks. He knows I have not claimed he is from Canada, but if he thinks that fools anyone, well he is pretty foolish...

I just noticed that Mr. "Diane" Lask is trying, rather vainly, to cover his tracks by claiming to be posting from England...

Nice try, but I'm not buying it. If he thinks I will simply accept his claims, well he is a fool. He can pop in anytime, and check out where people have posted from, and claim to be any one of them. Hardly clever at all.... And, of course, it is not that hard to fake an IP address and appear to be posting from somewhere else as well. I have a suspicion that Lask may have pulled a stunt like that.... In any case, there are serious holes in his story, if you just bother to look. I have been harassed by Lask for years, and his style is pretty obvious. Yes, I know that more than a few men in dresses don't care for me, but as I say, Lask sticks out like a sore thumb.... The holes in the story, and the writing style? Yeah, it's Lask!Too funny!

In my last posting, I talked about my error of thinking Elizabeth at Notes From the T-Side might have gotten over her little snit about the Colorado high school case. Among other aspects of all that, I wondered how long it would be before the nasty stalker, "Diane" Lask would pop back up. Well, it didn't take that long…. As he tends to do, this person, who I used to refer to as an "idiot troll" back in the waning days of my regular involvement on Usenet, made another round of nasty, and quite false, claims.The funny part in all of this, is how this whole episode seems to sum up a lot that is wrong with how both transsexuals and those who make up the quite separate "transgender community" tend to act out online.As I have pointed out, there is often a tendency of some to elevate themselves to a sort of self-aggrandized status as a "pioneer" of sorts. Suzan Cooke has made an online career of this sort of silliness, and Elizabeth has adopted the same sort of approach. The story is always the same. They were an early transitioner. They had no doubts, no insecurities, their transition was flawless, and anyone who does not agree with their every infallible pronouncement is, at best, suspect.And they tend to surround themselves with a bunch of sycophants who provide a chorus of ego strokes that allows them to hide some very obvious insecurities. I will give Elizabeth credit for one thing…she tends to not be as inclined to censorship as Cooke, who apparently can't deal with disagreement at all. And, so far, Elizabeth has resisted the urge to completely abandon all principles and pledge her troth to Mr. "Cristan" Williams and the transgender extremists.The truly funny part is, for a group, including Elizabeth herself, who seem to be inclined to question others intelligence, they seem to have seriously impaired reading comprehension. My final words there, albeit a bit garbled when my fingers slipped and I missed what the spell checker produced, were "I should have gone with my first instinct and ignored you. I won't make that mistake again." That after ignoring quite a bit of drivel that preceded the post I responded to. But, both Elizabeth, and several in her sycophant chorus, chimed in like fools, to suggest I should go elsewhere. Hmmm, now perhaps they are simply posturing like childish fools, trying to boost their own egos, by telling themselves that they "bested" me. When, as I said, I don't post there again, they can tell themselves that it was their doing.But, back to Lask, and his latest round of garbage. This is the classic example of what people like Elizabeth surround themselves with. Lask postures about how he is a "A true TS misidentified by JJ." Actually, Lask, as I have pointed out, turns out to have never had SRS. For quite some time, Lask hid behind a claim of his surgery having "failed." Of course when one considers that Lask also used to brag about his great successes as a well paid programmer (including claiming to have owned a Corvette) one also has to wonder why Lask never had corrective surgery. Now, Lask simply hides behind fake names, and anonymous remailers to lash out at imagined enemies. Lask likes to make a big deal out of some poorly chosen words I put on a website I threw together back when having a vanity web site was "the thing." (Now, that would be having a blog instead.) The funny part is, Lask not only strongly identified as a transvestite at one time, he was a very active member of a group originally known as Educational TV Channel, which morphed into Transgender San Francisco, or more commonly, TGSF. Yes, Mr, "true transsexual" was an active member of a transvestite social group. And he wants to accuse others of being autogynephilic. Even funnier, Lask likes to parrot Michael Bailey, and point out that I am a "techie." Well, Lask spent years as a programmer and as a very active transvestite. Hmmm….Lask, along with a few others, is the reason there are parts of my past I simply don't disclose. Yes, that leads to, as some claim, my backstory lacking "consistency." And if someone wants to attempt to exploit that, that is certainly their privilege. Lask's backstory lacks quite a bit of veracity, but Lask sticks to simple lies, leaving out major details such as his military career (he certainly was NOT an early transitioner) and his involvement with a transvestite social club. But hey, some people are just very skilled liars. That is typical of what psychologists would label a "sociopath."

Friday, November 15, 2013

I screwed up yesterday...After noticing Elizabeth's post on Notes From the T Side I made the mistake of thinking she had gotten over her little snit fit, and might be willing to put stuff behind us. Not even close. I don't know what it is, but some early transitioning transsexuals, at least ones who transitioned back in the Sixties, seem to have some major insecurities. The classic example, of course, is Suzan Cooke. Granted Cooke has gone full tilt as a transgender apologist, apparently deciding the ego strokes she gets from the men in dresses bunch is worth it.I can understand having some identification with a possible early transitioning transsexual such as might be the case in Colorado. Now, I say might be simply because we really have pretty much zero valid information. Almost everything published has been filtered through either the Pacific Justice Institute, or Mr. "Cristan" Williams. Simply put, this means it is highly probable that the facts have been lost in their attempts to "spin" the story to fit their extremist agendas. I tried to explain this to Elizabeth, but she is the sort of person who sees things as you either totally accept her extremely rigid viewpoint, or well, you can expect a vicious and rather nasty attack. And yes, I know some of the extremists would accuse me of the same thing, but well, they would be wrong. I don't have a lot of patience when others do such things, and when they do, I will generally give them a full dose of reality. But if someone is willing to engage in a rational, and reasonable discussion, I can be quite pleasant about it. I have a lot of friends with whom I may disagree on some points. We are able to discuss this, and if necessary, agree to disagree, without resorting to accusations of bigotry, hatred, and intolerance, or the need to toss insults, profanity, or profane insults.I'm sorry, but I won't be bullied into agreeing to something I don't believe. And if that causes someone to resort to ridiculous attacks in an attempt to do so, I will generally either confront them with their own failures, or, possibly just walk away if the area of disagreement is relatively narrow. In the case of extremist kooks like Mr. Williams, or Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, I will generally expose their lies, and take apart their illogical arguments. In the case of Elizabeth, I am more disappointed than anything else.I mean seriously... She seems to have some need to act like a character out of some bad teen flick. She seems to want to play the "mean girl." Between impugning my intelligence, and questioning my validity as a transsexual, she pretty much went off on some ridiculous tangents.Her principle argument that the person who has been labeled "Jane Doe" by Mr. Williams must be a transsexual amounted to "no kid that age would subject themselves to the abuse and ridicule" unless they really were. Well, I obviously did not agree with that position, and a recent situation here in the Bay Area, where a teenage boy who has chosen to act out by claiming to be "agender" and wearing skirts, was set on fire when he fell asleep on a bus. I was a little surprised that the trans kooks were a bit slow picking up on the story, but they seem to have finally discovered it. But, as horrible as this crime is (NO ONE SHOULD EVER BE SET ON FIRE FOR ANY REASON) it does expose the fact that, well, Elizabeth was simply wrong. Instead of saying, "Okay, I don't agree, but I can see your point," she slings more insults and tries to claim it is two different things. Well, I agree, clearly claiming to be "agender" is not exactly the same as claiming to be transgender, or perhaps transsexual, but it is also not really that much different in terms of possible stigma, and in fact, claiming to be "agender" is probably going to invite even more stigma.Bottom line, the argument that no teenager would claim to be a transsexual, who is not actually one, is totally without merit. So, without more accurate information, I am going to withhold judgement.The other area where Elizabeth showed extremely poor reasoning was first off, adding to something I said in a comment so she could attack me (i.e. a straw man argument), and then using a "No True Scotsman" fallacy based on that.I mentioned a very personal, and largely private period in my life. There is a lot about that time I simply am not going to talk about publicly, and which I have only discussed, in detail with a few very close and trusted friends. I usually some it up, in a very over-simplified manner, by saying it was triggered, in part. because of a very poor therapist. The bottom line is, I went through an emotional crisis, and detransitioned for about seven years. Elizabeth seized on that small bit of information, and claimed I had "failed at transition." That is not even remotely accurate. I delayed my transition because I decided, for deeply personal reasons that are really not any of her business, to attempt to find a lesser path. Now, some might argue that I should reveal all, but I am not going to do so for several reasons. First, doing so would invade the privacy of other people. Second, there was a lot of pain involved in that period of my life. And third, as I have discussed here before, there are people who spend a lot of time online stalking others, and I am not going to give them information they would gladly abuse. If Elizabeth really needs to look down on others to feel better, that is her failing, not mine. If she wants to imagine things, based on a small amount of knowledge, and a large amount of insecurity, well...that is her problem. I really don't need her permission or her imprimatur to be a woman. If she wants to set some absurd criteria to judge someone's validity, she can join the kooks like Bailey and Blanchard who have made a career of doing such. Again, I have pointed out that some, such as Mr. Williams and Mr. Sandeen, are neither transsexuals, or women. This is based on arguable facts, not whether or not they followed the exact same path I did, or whether or not they adhere to some political viewpoint.

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Well, Mr. "Cristan" Williams is at it again... This time, he has gone so far as to defend "Colleen" Francis, who exposed himself to a group of teenage girls at Evergreen College in Washington State. Perhaps defend is not the proper term. As is typical with Mr. Williams, he has confabulated a rather fanciful tale in a desperate attempt to deny what actually happened.Mr. Williams is trying to claim that the whole affair is really all an "urban legend," by, well, trying to cook up an urban legend. I find it kind of interesting that Mr. Williams has waited over a year to come up with the bit of drivel. Apparently he thinks it has been long enough that people might actually believe his lies.But the real question is why? Is it because, well, the "Colleen" Francis affair is so far-fetched that we should all believe that such a thing could never happen? Or is it because, well, if the transgender extremists like Mr. Williams have their way, things like this will become routine?If you guessed the former, sorry, but you are wrong. If you guessed the latter, congratulations!You see, very central to the REAL transgender agenda is an effort to force women to accept, shall we say, nude intact males in areas where there is an expectation of privacy. Put a bit less delicately, these, uh, "women" are supposed to be free to wave their, uh, neo-clits around. And if you don't like it? TOUGH! Just ask Transadvocate contributor Mr. "Zinnia" Jones:

"Cis people’s bathroom fears do not matter"

And then there is this outright lie from Mr. "Mara" Kiesling, in which he actually admits to the fact that part of the agenda is forcing women to accept nude men in the showers and dressing rooms:

The most significant change for transgender people is that we fought for and won removal of language that clarified use of showers and locker rooms "where being seen unclothed would be unavoidable." None of the states that have passed and successfully implemented a gender identity anti-discrimination law includes such a provision, and neither should ENDA.

This is not true, as 11 of the 17 states with such laws have separate provisions that protect privacy in such areas. And as I showed in my previous post, this is a part of those schools policies that Mr. Williams has been lying and saying were "identical" to the new transgender school law that is currently being challenged in California. That law specifically leaves out any provision that would allow for such protections. It is important to remember that an omission can be as significant as an inclusion.No, bottom line, this is the real transgender agenda. Mr. Williams wants you to believe that what happened at Evergreen College is a myth. He wants you to not demand protections until it is too late...And I do appreciate Elizabeth at Notes From the T Side having the decency to acknowledge that I was right when I predicted that this would happen. As I said, I was not interested in attacking a young transsexual. I'm simply opposed to Mr. Williams and his ilk using a child to push their agenda.

Monday, October 28, 2013

After reading yet another bit of drivel from Mr. "Cristan" Williams, in which he goes on about allegations of rapes in Oakland Schools, I got curious and did a bit of checking. I had noticed that Mr. Williams mentioned an email from the Oakland California School District, and in that email it mentioned that they have attached a copy of their school policy, which it was stated was "largely similar" to the new state law. Now, that struck me as rather curious. Largely similar is not quite the same as the claims made by Mr. Williams and other activists about the nature of these school policies and how they relate to AB 1266. So, I looked online, and I found the Oakland School District policy that covers transgender students.

Yes, it could certainly be called "largely similar," or it could be called significantly different....Here is what it says:

• Names/PronounsStudents shall have the right to be addressed by a name and pronoun conesponding to their gender identity that is exclusively and consistently asserted at school.• Official RecordsThe District shall change a student's official records to reflect a change in legal name or gender upon receipt of documentation that such legal name and/or gender have been changed pursuant to California legal requirements.• Restroom AccessibilityStudents shall have access to the restroom that conesponds to their gender identity exclusively and consistently at school.• Locker Room AccessibilityTransgender stud ents shall not be forced to use the locker room corresponding to their gender assigned at birth.• Sports and Gym ClassTransgender students shall not be denied the opportunity to participate in sports and gym

• Dress CodesStudents shall have the right to dress in accordance with their gender identity that is exclusively and consistently asserted at school, within the constraints of the dress codes adopted at their school site.• Gender Segregation in Other AreasAs a general rule, in any other circumstances where students are separated by gender in school activities, students shall be permitted to participate in accordance with their gender identity exclusively and consistently asserted at school.

Notice anything that is clearly missing from the state law? Like the words "exclusively and consistently asserted at school." Notice that it does not say that students would be allowed to use locker rooms with members of the opposite sex? This is a reasonable approach.Now, what about San Francisco? Long thought of as the home of the extremes of such policies...you would expect they would have a policy more in keeping with the desires of kooks like Mr. Williams and company....:

Names/PronounsStudents shall have the right to be addressed by a name and pronoun corresponding to their gender identity that is exclusively and consistently asserted at school. Students are not required to obtain a court ordered name and/or gender change or to change their official records as a prerequisite to being addressed by the name and pronoun that corresponds to their gender identity. This directive does not prohibit inadvertent slips or honest mistakes, but it does apply to an intentional and persistent refusal to respect a student’s gender identity. The requested name shall be included in the SIS system in addition to the student’s legal name, in order to inform teachers of the name and pronoun to use when addressing the student.

Official RecordsThe District is required to maintain a mandatory permanent pupil record which includes the legal name of the pupil, as well as the pupil’s gender. 5 Cal. Code Reg. 432(b)(1)(A), (D). The District shall change a student’s official records to reflect a change in legal name or gender upon receipt of documentation that such legal name and/or gender have been changed pursuant to California legal requirements.

Restroom AccessibilityStudents shall have access to the restroom that corresponds to their gender identity exclusively and consistently asserted at school. Where available, a single stall bathroom may be used by any student who desires increased privacy, regardless of the underlying reason. The use of such a single stall bathroom shall be a matter of choice for a student, and no student shall be compelled to use such bathroom.

Locker Room AccessibilityTransgender students shall not be forced to use the locker room corresponding to their gender assigned at birth. In locker rooms that involve undressing in front of others, transgender students who want to use the locker room corresponding to their gender identity exclusively and consistently asserted at school will be provided with the available accommodation that best meets the needs and privacy concerns of all students involved. Based on availability and appropriateness to address privacy concerns, such accommodations could include, but are not limited to:

Use of a private area in the public area (i.e., a bathroom stall with a door, an area separated by a curtain, a PE instructor’s office in the locker room);A separate changing schedule (either utilizing the locker room before or after the other students); or

Use of a nearby private area (i.e., a nearby restroom, a nurse’s office).Sports and Gym Class

Transgender students shall not be denied the opportunity to participate in physical education, nor shall they be forced to have physical education outside of the assigned class time. Generally, students should be permitted to participate in gender-segregated recreational gym class activities and sports in accordance with the student’s gender identity that is exclusively and consistently asserted at school. Participation in competitive athletic activities and contact sports will be resolved on a case by case basis.

Dress CodesSchool sites can enforce dress codes that are adopted pursuant to Education Code 35291. Students shall have the right to dress in accordance with their gender identity that is exclusively and consistently asserted at school, within the constraints of the dress codes adopted at their school site. This regulation does not limit a student’s right to dress in accordance with the Dress/Appearance standards articulated in the Student and Parent/Guardian Handbook, page 23.

Gender Segregation in Other AreasAs a general rule, in any other circumstances where students are separated by gender in school activities (i.e., class discussions, field trips), students shall be permitted to participate in accordance with their gender identity exclusively and consistently asserted at school. Activities that may involve the need for accommodations to address student privacy concerns will be addressed on a case by case basis. In such circumstances, staff shall make a reasonable effort to provide an available accommodation that can address any such concerns.

Well, what do you know...San Francisco's policy is not only more detailed, it is actually quite well written. It even makes provision for students who might object to using the bathroom with someone who is transgender, though it does this in somewhat subtle manner. Notice the detailed policy concerning locker rooms.Notice that phrase "the available accommodation that best meets the needs and privacy concerns of all students involved." Now, keep in mind...the state law was pretty much written with the guidance of the Transgender Law Center. This is a San Francisco based organization that undoubtedly is well aware of the San Francisco Unified School District transgender policy, which is above. They basically wrote a policy that avoids addressing real issues, the ones I have raised and been attacked by people for raising. They wrote a policy that removes protections for students who are uncomfortable with the provisions of the new law. They wrote a policy that would, in effect, actually prohibit protections for students who are not transgender, but who might be forced to share a locker room with those that are. And, sadly, which also fails to provide real protections for students who are actually transsexual.Oh, and in case someone wants to make some silly claim, notice that there are links to the San Francisco and Oakland policies above. Unlike Mr. Williams, I back up what I say with actual facts, instead of spinning stuff in an attempt to make it say something it doesn't.Again, while I have no doubt that the Pacific Justice Institute would still oppose the law if it was modified to include provisions like those above, such an improved law would far less likely to be overturned by the voters of California. One that that is clear, though...Mr. Williams and company have lied when they claim the new state law matches school district policies. It doesn't, and I suspect they know quite well that it doesn't.And I bet you good money that Mr. Williams and company will have a fit if there is an attempt to modify the law to include the above provisions.

Sometimes, sadly, you just can't reason with some people. You try to present your point of view, calmly, and rationally. Perhaps you even admit you made an error. But they are not going to be happy unless you totally give in to their position, and when you don't, they go off with insults. Sad, but it happens. I admit, I've done it myself, but I try to learn from that mistake.It usually happens with deeply held beliefs are challenged, and the person has no real answer, and they don't want to consider that they might be wrong. Even if you try to calmly respond, they simply get angrier, and angrier. Usually, you see this sort of response in religious discussions, but it can also happen when the topic is politics, or just something deeply personal to the person.Recently, I made some remarks about the student in a Colorado high school that I regret. I did not have all the facts, and I jumped to some conclusions I should not have. Elizabeth, at Notes From the T Side took me to task for that, and I admitted my mistake, but that turned out to not be good enough. Apparently I was expected to blindly agree that the "rights" of a transsexual or even a transgender student completely trump those of others. I won't do that, because that is, well, absurd. Legal rights generally have to be balanced. I have stated, I believe that the controversial law that is intended to assist "transgender" students in California is poorly written. It is very likely that a challenge to this law will be on the ballot next year, and it may well pass. I have made suggestions as to how that law can be modified to deal with issues, that may or may not be legitimate, that will be raised, and which, if not answered, willalmost certainly lead to the law being tossed.Okay, I realize that some might not agree with this. Some want those issues in place, because they really do think that "trans women" have an absolute right to expose themselves in women's spaces. Some seem incapable of seeing that this is part of a bigger effort. Some have naive ideas about "transkids." I would love to see laws in place to protect transsexual children. I don't want to see transsexual children used to push through the transgender agenda, which includes the idea that simply saying one feels female, even if only temporary, validly establishes one as female. Some apparently can't accept, in their blind rush to help kids, that this is the real agenda of some.Some apparently cannot accept that some people have SRS who should not have. I guess they are so insecure in their own identity that any suggestion that someone completely the process is no 100% a woman is terrifying. For whatever reason, and in spite of attempts to make peace, Elizabeth went off the deep end. Unfortunately, the debate attracted the attention of the notorious troll "Diane" Lask. Lask, who it turns out is non-op like her late partner in terror, Cheryl Mullins, develops obsessions over people. As I pointed out, in the past, it was a Canadian transgender activist that Lask harassed for years. When that person withdrew from the net, and apparently returned to living as a male, Lask had to find a new target. Sadly, I became that target.Now, anyone with a shred of sense, who bothered to look at some of Lask's more absurd posts harassing me, would realize that Lask is nuts. But, as I say, people can choose to be blind.I finally reached my limit. It basically came to the point of either lowering myself to the level that Elizabeth had chosen, or simply walking away. I have chosen the latter. I am sure Lask, who has no real grasp on reality, will think he drove me off. Not even close. I simply realized that further discussion was futile, and decided not to waste more time on someone who cannot accept disagreement.It's sad. I respected Elizabeth, though I admit, as with others, the constant reminder of how she was a "transkid" gets a bit old. Not all of us had the good fortune to have that choice. The air of superiority that some who did, adopt, gets really old, really fast. Elizabeth kept telling me I could not understand what it is like for someone like that. The truth is, Elizabeth can't understand what it was like for someone who did not have the opportunity to get help that early. I'm honestly happy for her that she had the good fortune that she did. But I am saddened that she cannot comprehend what like was like for someone who did not have that chance.In any case, I have removed "Notes From the T Side" from my blog list and she can rant all she wants, but it's not worth commenting any further.

Saturday, October 26, 2013

Early on in the now endless stream of silliness over a single student in Colorado, I made an assumption I should not have made, and asserted that the person in question was not making an effort to assimilate as female. I now realize that I simply do not have enough information to say that. Simply put, I don't know what the situation is.What I do know is that most of the information in this case has either come through Pacific Justice Institute, or Mr. "Cristan" Williams. They represent two opposite extremes, and I consider both to be about equally reliable. Which is to say, I would not take what either of them says as absolute truth without some serious verification from a more reliable source, and in this case, there have been none.Some people, who I respect, or at least did respect, have viciously attacked me for not following them in lockstep. I'm sorry, but first off, I refuse to suspend thinking just because someone tells me to. If that leads to the person attacking me, insulting me, trying to shame me, and thus trying to bully me into accepting their view that tends to make me wonder why they can't accept that someone might not see things their way.I am saying, for the record, I don't know what the situation is. If someone wants to blindly follow a proven liar in this matter, that is their choice. I made that sort of mistake early on, when I was not aware of the source, and I regret it. But I won't be bullied by people, even people I considered to be friends, into rushing to the opposite extreme either.If I make a mistake, I own up to up. If someone points that out to me, and offers legitimate arguments, I reconsider. If someone tries to shove bad information down my throat, and then insults me because I don't swallow it, well...that doesn't work so well. It says a lot more about them, than it does about me. And just so people know where I am coming from...I identify as a woman, not a "trans woman" or a "transsexual woman" or any other such term. I try to consider the feelings of others who are also women a lot more than I consider the feelings of just those who might share a similar history to mine. Yes, our situation is different. I recognize that. But, it is not the only thing that defines me. And quite frankly, I get really sick of "identity politics" no matter who is trying to push it.Oh, and I notice Suzan Cooke has again attacked me for speaking up. I really do pity her. She clearly has some serious insecurities. I don't demand that people agree with me, and contrary to repeated claims, I don't use male pronouns just because someone disagrees with me. I use male pronouns when I honestly feel that they are justified. People like Mr. Williams, and Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen are so clearly men, it almost hurts. Cooke, as bad as she acts...as much as she has become, to go with the analogy she was so smitten with, Locutus of Borg, is a woman. A deeply disturbed, nut case but still a woman. So no, I don't call people men because I disagree. I call them men because they show no sign of remotely being women.

Friday, October 25, 2013

As I said yesterday, the "trans panic" continues, and to be honest, it is getting pretty deep. Mr. "Cristan" Williams is in overdrive pumping out the lies, straw man arguments, and such, and the sad thing is, he is just making the whole mess at the worse.His latest bit of drivel would be hilarious if it were not so serious. He has posted another straw man argument that seems to raise some serious questions about what really is going on in Florence, CO. In his latest opinion piece masquerading as "news" he seems to claim that the police are investigating Pacific Justice Institute for "bullying." What is actually said is very disturbing, if true. Of course, like pretty much everything in this case, this bit of information comes from a biased source... Apparently Pacific Justice Institute has alleged that Superintendent Rhonda Vendetti has warned that "that the complaining families were now subject to having their social media monitored by police." Okay, there are basically three possibilities here...PJI has fabricated this claim, the superintendent is lying, or the police actually are engaged in outrageous, and illegal acts intended to repress free speech. The one thing that is very clear is, well, as usual, Mr. Williams is lying again. The parents are not Pacific Justice Institute, and the Florence Police would have no jurisdiction to investigate them for bullying (PJI Is located in California). Now, let's look at several facts, some of which have nothing to do with the Colorado case anyway:First, in spite of what some want to believe, none of this is really about transsexuals. Mr. Williams pretty much has shown outright disdain for transsexuals. He is very focused on "transgender rights" which is an entirely different subject. He is simply desiring to use a teenage student in Colorado to further a far more extreme political agenda, and apparently will use any sleazy trick he can dream up, including now attempting to buy the support of the parents. Mr. Williams has started a fund raising drive to provide them with money. I guess they have to be rewarded for allowing him to use their child.The real issue is also not a high school student in Colorado. It is about preserving a rather poorly written law in California. Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen posted a rather telling comment. He quotes the AB 1266's author who speaks of how various school districts have instituted "common sense" policies. That is true. For example, I did a little research, and found a news article from a local paper, The Canon County Daily Record, in Colorado about the case. It provided a bit of information about Colorado's law concerning transgender rights:

The Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies Civil Rights Commission states under Rule 81.11 - Gender-Segregated Facilities (http://bit.ly/18jzRRz) that nothing in the Colorado Antidiscrimination Act prohibits segregation of facilities on the basis of gender; all covered entities shall allow individuals the use of gender-segregated facilities that are consistent with their gender identity, including but not limited to restrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms and dormitories; and in gender-segregated facilities where undressing in the presence of others occurs, covered entities shall make reasonable accommodations to allow access consistent with an individual's gender identity. (emphasis mine)

BTW, while Mr. Williams has written an increasing number of articles on this case, that was the ONLY story in the local paper.

Okay, that is not terribly different from the regulations here in San Francisco. Here they use the term "inevitable nudity" but otherwise the policy is pretty much the same. They have to make modifications, if reasonable, otherwise they have to provide access to equivalent facilities. For example, if there are showers, they have to provide separate stalls, and curtains. That sort of thing. They do NOT have to allow a "Colleen" Francis situation, like Mr. Williams wants. And that brings us to "Colleen" Francis and what that pervert tells us about what is really going on. Some years ago, when the push for transgender rights really took off...when it was decided that the status quo, which was that transsexuals, perhaps with what were called "carry letters" were pretty much allowed access to restrooms, and other facilities, was not enough, and that crossdressers and such should be allowed access as well, some raised the concern that it would not stop there. That these men would want to force their way into more private spaces. We were told that this was absurd, that it would never happen....Yeah, "Colleen" Francis... BTW, Mr. Williams's response to that case was laughable. He actually tried, in an absurd post, to claim that women were a greater threat than men. Of course, this is a man who has pushed the "cotton ceiling" meme, and who has pretty much show clear disdain for women who, uh, well....don't have penises. Suddenly, it is not only okay for men (sorry, but if you are willing to wave your penis around in a women's locker room or shower, you are a MAN, BABY!) to invade women's spaces, but to do so nude.AB 1266 does not contain a provision that addresses "inevitable nudity." It does not allow for provisions that address "inevitable nudity." It does not contain clauses that allow schools to set "common sense" policies. I imagine that the extremists at Transgender Law Center argued against such provisions. The law, and that is part of the problem, it is a law, not a school policy, is going to be enforced by judges, who will be constrained by what the law actually says. And by what it does not say.What the law says on the matter is a bit too simple:

A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.

It can, and no doubt will, be argued that the law does not allow a school to make provisions for dealing with inevitable nudity. That would be a "restriction." The law does not provide any provision for determining a student's gender identity. What if a student claims that it "fluctuates."

I sincerely believe that some "common sense" is needed...

The law should be modified to address "inevitable nudity."

The law should be modified to include a provision requiring some form of medical documentation that the student has been diagnosed as transsexual by a qualified, licensed therapist with experience in the treatment of that condition. And presentation would have to be consistent, not periodic.Rules that would address issues of fairness in athletics. Even if the claims of "gender identity" are true, imagine, for example, girl's basketball teams fielding male students with height and strength advantages that would otherwise be illegal. It would, in effect, be the equivalent of allowing students to take steroids. Not to mention, track and field, volleyball, and other sports. Those provisions would go a long way towards addressing legitimate concerns. Yes, groups like PJI would still object...but so, probably, would kooks like Mr. Williams and Mr. Sandeen, who suddenly would be losing their extremist agenda.Bottom line, it is really sad that a student in Colorado is being used by either side to further political gain. It is especially sad that this student is reported to be on "suicide watch." You know, I almost predicted in my article that would be the next development. I decided that would have been in poor taste, and didn't add it. I honestly hope it is not true. But, given that the child might actually believe what Mr. Williams, and Mr. Sandeen have lied about having been said, I don't know if it is true or not. Would I put it past Mr. Williams to make such a claim if it were not true? Not at all. He has already shown he lies as easily as he breathes. He has already shown that he is more than willing to pay for the use of this child. He has already shown little actual regard for the child's privacy. And no, I don't hate Mr. Williams. I find his behavior to be reprehensible but no, I do not wish him harm. I wish he would show some decency and stop using a child for his political goals. But, I don't hate him. And I don't appreciate people making such claims in an attempt to use "club words" to beat me into submission.

Thursday, October 24, 2013

No, I don't mean "trans panic" in the sense of the rather nasty defense used when someone is murdered because they are discovered to be transsexual, or more likely, transgender. I mean the frantic attempts to gain attention by writing about the case of the Colorado high school student. The transgender extremists can't seem to get enough of it.Mr. "Cristan" Williams has repeatedly written on the subject, and now Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen has taken up the cause, having produced at least three four articles(they come so fast it is hard to keep up), two three on Transadvocate, and another on LGBT Weekly. Well, technically, the latest article on Transadvocate is more about AB 1266, which is at the heart of the panic.I suspect, AB 1266, a law that takes an extremist approach to protecting "transgender" students in California public schools will be overturned next year. I have said, repeatedly, that the smart move would be to have it amended to take out the excessive features (in particular sharing locker rooms) or at least include provisions concerning privacy (i.e. something similar to rules in San Francisco that address "inevitable nudity"). Now, I don't even know what the situation is in school locker rooms. It has been a very long time since I was in one, and that may not even be an issue. But, whether it is, or not, addressing it would defuse the objections to the law.But, given that this has not once been addressed in anything I have seen, I suspect that it may well be a issue. And I also strongly suspect that transgender extremists have no problem with the issue, even though I have no doubt it would cause even more upset for students who are legitimately transsexual (who are really not a concern for the kooks like Sandeen and Williams).I do find it amusing that, while the Pacific Justice Institute has made the claim that the Colorado student was harassing female students, the only ones who has applied terms like "attacking," "predator," and "monster," have been trans extremists attempting, desperately, to create straw man arguments.Now, honest people can disagree on whether or not what has occurred in that Colorado high school amounts to harassment. Arguments can be made both ways. But the simple truth is, no one, not even the Pacific Justice Institute has actually referred to that child using words like "predator" or "monster" except the trans extremists. The really bad thing is, I can imagine this child reading some of the articles in support, and actually believing that people have used those terms...when they haven't.I have been attacked by people I would normally support because I have declined to accept extremists positions on this case. I am saddened that this child is being used by either side to further a political agenda. I am saddened that this child's privacy has been invaded by having photos posted online. It seems odd...much has been made about people making death threats, and yet, something that might lead to someone spotting the child and attacking has been posted. Without the photos being posted, the chances of someone identifying the child are much less. But, anyone who is obsessive enough to actually carry out such an attack now has more information to use.In spite of what some, in fits of irrational rage, have suggested, I don't want this child harmed. Sadly, if it does happen, it may well be more the fault of the trans extremists than those they try to smear while pushing their agenda.

Friday, October 18, 2013

As I have pointed out, several times, there has been a lot said about the case of the transgender male in a Colorado high school who has been accused of harassing female students. Much has been made about how "inaccurate" the news stories were. I disagree. I think they raised valid points, and that the reaction from the transgender extremists simply illustrates the true nature of the problem.

The Pacific Justice Institute issued a statement in which they said, "a trans person in the restroom is 'inherently intimidating and harassing.'" I think that statement, as written, is somewhat flawed. First off, the words "trans person" are very vague. I imagine they might well, for example, include me in that, and yet, I use the restroom regularly without intimidating or harassing anyone. Further, I do not identify as a "trans person."

And, some who might properly be identified as a "trans person" and who might self-identify as such would also be able to use the restroom without being "intimidating and harassing." But, I would completely agree if it were reworded as, "a trans person in the restroom can be inherently intimidating and harassing."

What would make a difference? Why is this true in a case like the one in Colorado, but not, perhaps in other cases? The answer is simple. In the case in Colorado, there has been no real attempt on the part of the student to assimilate as a female. He is, as they say, "out, loud, and proud." This is a continuing problem with the transgender extremists. They not only are out, they make sure everyone knows their history. They don't attempt to fit in as women...they force their situation in everyone's face.

And that is how some, like Mr. "Cristan" Williams, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen," Mr. "Dana" Taylor and others want it. They not only don't care that they are making women uncomfortable, they seem to take delight in it. And this is just wrong.

When I transitioned, I went to great lengths to make sure that I was not causing a problem in using the women's room. The thought never occurred to me to see it as an inherent right. If I had not been able to assimilate, I am not sure what I would have done. But, I seriously doubt I would have been able to continue my transition.

Now, we have kooks like Mr. Williams and Mr. Sandeen who go out of their way to not assimilate. They seem to treasure the shock value of being known as "transgender." It is the focus of their sad little lives, and if that makes women uncomfortable, they are all the happier, claiming it as some sort of "teaching moment."

I believe it is time for a return to sanity in this area. If someone is not going to make an effort to actually assimilate as a woman, then they should stay out of women's spaces. If you have not had surgery, then you should not be in a place where a woman might see you nude. And if you are told you are making women uncomfortable, then you should take corrective steps to prevent this. Otherwise....well, you are just acting like man, and a rather nasty one at that.

In a post yesterday, I misattributed a position to Cathy Brennan. I apologize for that. I said, "...she simply points out a simple fact, that "a trans person in the restroom is 'inherently intimidating and harassing.' " " This not a position she has taken, and I should not have attributed it to her. This was a position that was stated by the Pacific Justice Institute, and I misunderstood Ms. Brennan's views concerning.In short, dear readers, I did the sort of thing that Mr. "Cristan" Williams does regularly, though in this case, my purpose was not to attack Cathy Brennan. Nevertheless, I did attribute a position to her that she does not hold, and that was wrong. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.I will also correct the post from yesterday to remove the error.

Thursday, October 17, 2013

[Updated to correct an error in which I misattributed a position to Cathy Brennan. For that, I apologize.]I am sure most are familiar with the "Emperor's New Clothes." It is the story of a very vain but gullible emperor of an imaginary land who is sold a set of "special" garments. The thing is, he is told that they are made from a fabric invisible to anyone who is unfit for his position or "hopelessly stupid". Of course, the garments are not real, and he is being tricked into paying for nothing.

So, when his new "clothes" are delivered, he is shocked to discover that he, the emperor, is apparently "unfit," but not willing to admit this, he makes a great fuss over how fine they are and after being assisted in dressing by the con artists who have tricked him, and having his ministers also discover they they too are not "unfit" (and of course no one admits this) he goes out in public where the crowds, again wishing to avoid embarrassment, make a great fuss over how fine the garments are. Until, finally, a young child says, "Why does the emperor have no clothes?"

Well, many, like the emperor, are being sold an illusion. And some are beginning to ask questions, and that is causing panic among transgender extremists. Over the past several days, a number of them, led by Mr. "Cristan' Williams, have tried to counter an article that first appeared on Christian Broadcasting Networks website about a transgender male in Colorado, who has invaded the girls bathroom, and the fact that this has caused distress for female students.

Mr. Williams has posted at least five (now up to six) stories on Transadvocate, plus one on his personal web page, and has further made efforts to hound any news site that has dared repeat the story. All of his posts have included outright lies, in an attempt to stem what is clearly the beginning of a coming backlash.

The latest post on Transadvocate is just absurd. Headlined, "Anti-gay activist group admits trans school “harassment” is fake," it is basically just one big lie. The group in question, Pacific Justice Institute did not make an admission, and the whole thing is Mr. Williams putting words in their mouth in an attempt to create another of his trademark straw man arguments.

Mr. Williams starts off:

Okay. Maybe the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) doesn’t think that they’re admitted their charge of “harassment” is fake, but I’ll let you be the judge.

Okay, there is so much wrong here, it is laughable. First off, it is kind of hard to make an admission without intending to actually do so. Second, well, let's be honest, Mr. Williams is not going let anyone be the judge. He is going to tell you what to think, and demand that you accept it.

What is really going on becomes a bit more obvious later in the post. He attacks one of his favorite targets, attorney Cathy Brennan, because, well she simply quoted a statement from Pacific Justice Institute. This is not even a position taken by her/ That post points out their view that "a trans person in the restroom is 'inherently intimidating and harassing.'" Now, to be specific, what is referenced, is having someone who is male, who makes it clear that he is male, but who i claiming to be "a girl," insisting on using the women's restroom. We are not talking about someone who has a medical condition, who is seeking to assimilate as a female. We are talking about someone who wants to be "out, loud, and proud," as a transgender.Williams goes on to attack Brennan for "outing" an FTM transgender teenager, while glossing over the fact that what Brennan actually did was notify school authorities about this person posting harassing messages on Tumblr, including some about women and rape. The student was making the posts from a school account. Of course, in the fantasy world of the transgender activist, such behavior as that committed by the student is protected and Brennan should have simply accepted it without complaint. I guess "ordinary women" don't count...only trans women.All of this serves to further expose what terrifies kooks like Mr. Williams. If people actually stop and consider what is really going on, the entire transgender house of cards will come crashing down. They are not interested in helping the rare person who actually is transsexual, who simply wants to get on with their life, avoiding publicity. In fact, if you do wish this, they are very likely to show what hypocrites they really are, and attempt to out you, especially if you don't wish to follow them in lockstep.No, the truth must remain hidden. The focus must be kept off of the fact that they are trying to force people to accept that women have penises, and that simply claiming womanhood magically grants it in total.And people are finding that increasingly hard to swallow.... And noticing that not only is the emperor quite naked, but that he is trying to be such in women's locker room....

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Well, as is his style, Mr. "Cristan" Williams is strutting about and crowing about how he has "forced" several news organizations to pull the story about the transgender student who harassed girls at his Colorado high school. Part of this stems from the vagueness of the term "harass." I would not be at all surprised if the claim was made on the basis of the unquestionable fact that a male student, now claiming to be transgender, and therefore "female" insisted on his right to enter the girls restroom. Is this harassment? Well, if you are a female, and you have someone you know to be a male, who is not even trying to make a secret of that, quite publicly insisting on sharing the restroom with you, and this makes you uncomfortable...then yes, I would call that harassment.This is the problem with the whole transgender extremist approach. These people are not trying to actually be women. Men like Mr. "Cristan" Williams, and Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, and Mr. "Dana" Taylor are not remotely attempting to be women. The very idea is foreign, and even repulsive to them. They are trying to be "transgender." They cannot imagine not being, as they would say, "out, loud, and proud." The idea that someone might simply mistake them for an actual female would be terribly upsetting.No, what they are all about is forcing people to suspend reality, suppress their clear knowledge, and basically accept a lie...namely that they are "women," and even "female" even though they have penises, and would rather die than give then up.So yes, Fox News is right...this male student is harassing the girls at his high school. He is not some poor innocent just trying to deal with a medical condition...he is actively forcing his chosen behavior on girls who, I have no doubt, are not at all happy. And yes, that is pretty much textbook case of harassment.And I am not even going to bother ripping apart his rather obvious abuse of statistics to bolster absurd claims, like how "half of the transgender population" are victims of rape. That is totally bogus. Well, okay...that one is too good to pass up. It is based on some surveys conducted in places like here in San Francisco. I am familiar with these kinds of studies, and the population is not "all transgender people" or even a representative portion of "all transgender people." The participants are largely transgender sex workers, who have a very high rate of things like sexual assault...as do sex workers in general. So, while a study might show that half of the participants were sexually assaulted, that does not remotely translate into the outrageous claims made by Mr. Williams.But hey, Mr. Williams wouldn't know the truth if it slapped him in the face (which, quite frankly, it does regularly).

About Me

Copyright Notice

All original content of this blog is copyright 2017 by J.U. and all rights are reserved.

Comment Policy

Just so there is no confusion, and to make sure that certain gender fascists cannot make false claims, I want to make clear my policy concerning comments. The only rule, and it is a hard and fast one, is "NO INVASIONS OF PRIVACY!" That is, if you post information about me, such as my name, or other private information, your post will not see the light of day. After having a couple of rather nasty trolls try to get around this, I have had to do something I really dislike. Because Blogger does not allow me to block individuals, I now have to approve all comments. But, if your comment does not violate the one rule, it will be approved. So please, don't go running to someone and claim you were censored...especially someone with an established history of censoring posts to prevent actually having to defend his silliness...